Accidents/Incidents/PVT/CHTR/RPT/AWK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accidents/Incidents/PVT/CHTR/RPT/AWK
Hi All,
Well I thought I had a good understanding of Air Law, until I did the CPL exam this morning only to fail with 78%
ALL of the questions I got wrong were in 2 areas. I was given examples of something that went wrong and what I had to do in order to report it. e.g.
1.) I encountered severe turbulence and believed the structural loads on the aircraft were exceeded. The aircraft is required for CHTR the next morning, what should you do?
Well in the AIP's it says that if it is believed the damaged resulted then it should be a IRM. Too bad that wasnt an options in the answers. The answers were something like:
a) put an endorsment in the maintenance release
b) record the damage in the maintenance thus grounding the aircraft
c) immediatley report it to the CFI upon arriving home
d) do nothing
I choose C..... not to sure how your supposed to pull an answer from that. Am I missing something?
From my knowledge that would have been a IRM = phone CASA when you get back asap and write a report within 72 hours. An incident however only requires a report within 72 hours.
The second type of question I got all wrong were along the lines of:
You work for a company who owns its own aircraft. Every week you fly the companys aircraft to move company employees from one place to another. However sometimes you also move company contractors who are required to pay for their own seat. What is the lowest operation this could be classed as?
a) CHTR
b) PVT
c) RPT
d) AWK (aerial work)
Well since the flights did not involve a timetable I immediatley knocked out RPT. The Reg's didnt have this sort of operation under the aerial work definitions (CAR 206), so I knocked that out also.
My understanding was that CHTR flights meant that a member from the public had to to be the person who initiated the flight. However, since this was a company flight, I answered PVT, which apparently isnt right!
Can anybody explain where I've gone wrong? Really annoying since I thought I had a solid understanding of Air Law!
Cheers!
Well I thought I had a good understanding of Air Law, until I did the CPL exam this morning only to fail with 78%
ALL of the questions I got wrong were in 2 areas. I was given examples of something that went wrong and what I had to do in order to report it. e.g.
1.) I encountered severe turbulence and believed the structural loads on the aircraft were exceeded. The aircraft is required for CHTR the next morning, what should you do?
Well in the AIP's it says that if it is believed the damaged resulted then it should be a IRM. Too bad that wasnt an options in the answers. The answers were something like:
a) put an endorsment in the maintenance release
b) record the damage in the maintenance thus grounding the aircraft
c) immediatley report it to the CFI upon arriving home
d) do nothing
I choose C..... not to sure how your supposed to pull an answer from that. Am I missing something?
From my knowledge that would have been a IRM = phone CASA when you get back asap and write a report within 72 hours. An incident however only requires a report within 72 hours.
The second type of question I got all wrong were along the lines of:
You work for a company who owns its own aircraft. Every week you fly the companys aircraft to move company employees from one place to another. However sometimes you also move company contractors who are required to pay for their own seat. What is the lowest operation this could be classed as?
a) CHTR
b) PVT
c) RPT
d) AWK (aerial work)
Well since the flights did not involve a timetable I immediatley knocked out RPT. The Reg's didnt have this sort of operation under the aerial work definitions (CAR 206), so I knocked that out also.
My understanding was that CHTR flights meant that a member from the public had to to be the person who initiated the flight. However, since this was a company flight, I answered PVT, which apparently isnt right!
Can anybody explain where I've gone wrong? Really annoying since I thought I had a solid understanding of Air Law!
Cheers!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First case: You obviously don't want anybody flying the aircraft until it has been cleared of damage.- Endorse the maintenance release. If this wan't done, while you are reporting the damage concievably somebody else could take the aircraft and come to grief.
Second Case. Regardless of who initiates the flight the contractor is paying for the seat and you are conducting the flight for hire or reward. It is a charter flight.
Second Case. Regardless of who initiates the flight the contractor is paying for the seat and you are conducting the flight for hire or reward. It is a charter flight.
Harropster
Read CAR 47(1) twice.
Read CARs 206(1), 2(7)(d) and 2(7A) thrice.
It will all become easier once Dick and his ‘taskforce’ produce the simpler versions, but during the intervening decade or so you will need to understand the current rules.
Dr O: Note the word ‘also’ in the scenario. There’s a mix of company employees (who don’t pay for their seat) and company subcontractors (who do pay for their seat) on the flight. You therefore don’t satisfy 2(7)(d) or 2(7A), whether or not you as pilot pay for your own seat or do it for free.
Read CAR 47(1) twice.
Read CARs 206(1), 2(7)(d) and 2(7A) thrice.
It will all become easier once Dick and his ‘taskforce’ produce the simpler versions, but during the intervening decade or so you will need to understand the current rules.
Dr O: Note the word ‘also’ in the scenario. There’s a mix of company employees (who don’t pay for their seat) and company subcontractors (who do pay for their seat) on the flight. You therefore don’t satisfy 2(7)(d) or 2(7A), whether or not you as pilot pay for your own seat or do it for free.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read CAR 47(1) twice.
Read CARs 206(1), 2(7)(d) and 2(7A) thrice.
Dr O: Note the word ‘also’ in the scenario. There’s a mix of company employees (who don’t pay for their seat) and company subcontractors (who do pay for their seat) on the flight. You therefore don’t satisfy 2(7)(d) or 2(7A), whether or not you as pilot pay for your own seat or do it for free
Thanks for ya help!
(Also if anyone wants to PM me some scenarios that I can have a go at, that would be great! - I'll reply in PM with my answers!)
kukytukytuk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read CAR 47(1) twice.
Read CARs 206(1), 2(7)(d) and 2(7A) thrice.
Dr O: Note the word ‘also’ in the scenario. There’s a mix of company employees (who don’t pay for their seat) and company subcontractors (who do pay for their seat) on the flight. You therefore don’t satisfy 2(7)(d) or 2(7A), whether or not you as pilot pay for your own seat or do it for free
When no money is transfered at all, this is considered PVT? (except when all passengers including the pilot cost share equally)
I agree the CAR's are very confusing..... especially for a beginner like myself.
Thanks guys!
[Also if anyone wants to send me some scenarios via. PM I will reply via. PM with my answer, that would be greatly appreciated!]
Last edited by harropster; 25th Jun 2007 at 08:53.
The classification of operation provisions are, shall we say, a little convoluted and counter-intuitive. Just because a flight does not make a ‘profit’ does not mean it is classified ‘private’, and some profit-making flights are classified ‘private’. Once you understand the classification of operations rules, you will be at one with the universe (or a certifiable lunatic).
As I say, these rules are going to be changed any decade now, because in 1996 Commissioner Staunton recommended ‘that in respect of Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (relating to various forms of commercial operations, including regular public transport operations) urgent consideration be given to amending or replacing the Regulation to overcome the problems identified in the course of the Commission’. A building full of experts as well as Dick Smith and his taskforce are on to it.
CAR 2 is at the start of the regs (just after CAR 1) here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...0/PR000060.htm. Scroll past all the definitions in CAR 2(1) and you will find a whole bunch of very important not-so-fine print.
As I say, these rules are going to be changed any decade now, because in 1996 Commissioner Staunton recommended ‘that in respect of Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (relating to various forms of commercial operations, including regular public transport operations) urgent consideration be given to amending or replacing the Regulation to overcome the problems identified in the course of the Commission’. A building full of experts as well as Dick Smith and his taskforce are on to it.
CAR 2 is at the start of the regs (just after CAR 1) here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...0/PR000060.htm. Scroll past all the definitions in CAR 2(1) and you will find a whole bunch of very important not-so-fine print.
